Plus, a look at the major changes coming to future Magic: the Gathering sets.

Magic: The Gathering has expanded yet again with Hour of Devastation, a follow-up to Amonkhet that continues to riff on Egyptian mythology with a large helping of dragon-led apocalypse. We’ve drafted, built decks, and played a bunch of Hour of Devastation matches—read on for our review!

We’re also going to dive into some of the recent news around the game, including changes to set structure and release cadence, and the future of Magic’s digital offerings.

What happened to Amonkhet?

Hour of Devastation (HOU) is set on the world of Amonkhet (see our review of the original set for more info) as the prophesied “hours” arrive, momentous events that promised glory and eternal life. It turns out, though, that those events were the machinations of Nicol Bolas, the major antagonist of the set.

Introducing a new world and then bringing in conflict is a theme that has been repeated by Wizards of the Coast with the large/small set structure of Magic recently, so there’s not really a “twist” element to enjoy here, but the aesthetic execution is top-notch. The gleaming city has become a besieged, panicked landscape, with some classic dark Egyptian tropes taking centre stage—the river turning to blood, a plague of locusts, the marauding living dead. There’s also clever references to Amonkhet, with ruined versions of buildings seen on old cards turning up in the art for new cards.

Enlarge/ On the left: a monument in Amonkhet. On the right: What has happened to that monument since the Hour of Devastation...

There’s also some more unusual themes to help Magic put its own stamp on the setting, especially around Nicol Bolas himself, who turns up in much of the set’s flavour text, generally expressing his contempt for all things that aren’t Nicol Bolas. Magic’s story continues to be surprisingly decent for a card game, and many of the cards depict key beats—the assault on the city, the slaying of the Gods we met last set, a new zombie army for Bolas, the “Eternals”—and there’s long-form stories that Wizards publish online for those who want more background.

The mechanics

Follow-up sets generally build on the first set mechanically, and HOU is no exception. Cycling and Exert are back, Eternalize is Embalm’s evil sibling, whilst Afflict is brand new. There’s also a bunch of cards that reference Deserts, a special type of land that showed up in Amonkhet, but had no previous mechanical relevance.

Cycling is a smooth continuation from the first set, allowing players to discard a card in exchange for a new one drawn from the deck, by paying a small cost. This has much the same effect on how fun the set is—more decision-making and less expensive cards “stuck” in the hand, which means more interesting games.

A couple of the super-Exert cards: splashy effects for a cheap immediate cost, but a major detriment for next turn.

Exert, on the other hand, has evolved. Though it’s still the same from a rules standpoint—some creatures let you Exert them to get some sort of extra benefit, but in exchange aren’t available to use for your next turn—it’s no longer only the combat boosts we saw in Amonkhet. In HOU, we get creatures Exerting to produce extra mana, snipe your opponent’s creatures, or create extra token creatures for your side. This leads to more interesting decision-making than the Amonkhet version, which was often just “exert to attack, unless I can attack normally.” As another nice extension, there’s a set of cards where you effectively Exert yourself, getting a huge effect for a low cost, but denying you access to most of your mana next turn.

Featured in this cycle are the original Gods of Amonkhet, mostly being cruelly disposed of by Bolas now their roles are complete. As part of the assault on the city, three more Gods arrive, their original purpose and personality lost. Beautifully, these cards don’t even have names—what were once revered Gods of the plane are Bolas’ minions now.

The new Gods in Hour of Devastation are just plain silly.

Afflict is meant to push home the general feeling of despair, but ends up falling a little flat. Afflict appears on many of the creatures serving Bolas, punishing someone who’s on the defensive, causing them to lose extra life even if the creature can’t make it through to the player. It’s not really frustrating to face down as the defensive deck, and pleasing to use in an aggressive deck, but compared to the rest of the set, it feels a little tacked-on and dull.

Eternalize is much more resonant, with Bolas building an advanced zombie army from the cream of the dead crops. Like Embalm, Eternalize cards can be played once from the graveyard, getting a second chance to fight for you, but unlike Embalm they get a hefty stat boost in exchange for an increased mana cost. Creatures brought back with Eternalize are always set to four power and four toughness, and often have abilities that take advantage of their bigger size.

Enlarge/ An Eternalize card on the left, plus its special token card, which can be found in some booster packs.

The capstone for Eternalize is the new set of zombie tokens (representing the resurrected minions) that can be collected from booster packs, depicting the unnaturally blue crystal-clad horrors with Egyptian-mythology-inspired adornments. Along with the mechanical implications—giving players something to do both early and late in a typical game of Magic—Eternalize is definitely the star of the set, and we’re glad to see it show up as a riff on Embalm.

The last mechanical theme is Deserts, a special subtype for lands. There’s a few cycles of Desert lands (two for each colour) that give you something else to do with spare lands—some that feature Cycling, some that allow you to sacrifice any Deserts (including themselves) for abilities often strong enough to turn round a game. There’s also a bunch of cards that reference Deserts, getting a small bonus if you have one in play or in the graveyard—a nice touch to prevent the feel-bad moment of sacrificing or cycling a Desert only to then draw a bunch of sweet Desert-loving camels. The low rarity and high count of these cards stops Deserts from feeling like they’ve just been tacked onto the set—most games will see a few show up and have an effect.

The one downside is that Deserts are a parasitic mechanic, undermining something about Magic that many love—combining cards from a variety of sets to create something powerful, or ridiculous, or both—as Deserts don’t have special interactions with older cards.

There are some really powerful Deserts in HOU, plus some bonus cards that care about them.

Is Hour of Devastation fun?

HOU features good, solid Magic gameplay, with a few twists to make it stand out. There’s a concerted effort to produce something for most types of player; sleek and efficient for the highly competitive, big and stompy for the hedonist, clever and weird for the experimental, flavourful for the lore nerd. The real victory of Cycling and Eternalize—together appearing on about 15% of the cards—is the smoothness they add to gameplay, preventing a few of those games where the inherent variance of a card game could have slipped away from fun into frustration.

With the evolution of Exert, a defensive strategy seems much more viable, allowing players to try out a variety of deck styles and in-game tactics, especially in the Limited formats, which we highly recommend as the way to play Magic. In Constructed formats, there is a bunch of power here to be discovered and explored over the next few months for Standard, but only a few potential tricks for the more niche Eternal formats.

22 Reader Comments

To be honest I wont miss Magic Duels. While I liked the way theyd update and integrate the latest packs in, I think Ive ultimately had less use out of Duels than almost all the previous iterations except for the awful 2015.

That all largely comes down to the insane cost of the cards. MTGO already exists, obviously as does the real world game, but they are asking for a tonne of cash to buy enough cards to start building decent decks _again_? and without the flexibility or longevity of MTGO? Meanwhile grinding for the things would take whole human lifetimes...

I ultimately longed for a set of a dozen or so well built decks to pick from, and launch in to multiplayer games where I could be certain of not getting wrecked by someone who has more money than sense. (and yes, I am aware this has been an issue for any CCG, but in the real world and MTGO it is _massively_ mitigated by trading and auctions etc.)

I doubt theyll go back to the old format, I suspect modern duels was probably more profitable despite and because of the above. So Im probably pinning my hopes on them expanding MTGO to serve the same purpose.

To be honest I wont miss Magic Duels. While I liked the way theyd update and integrate the latest packs in, I think Ive ultimately had less use out of Duels than almost all the previous iterations except for the awful 2015.

That all largely comes down to the insane cost of the cards. MTGO already exists, obviously as does the real world game, but they are asking for a tonne of cash to buy enough cards to start building decent decks _again_? and without the flexibility or longevity of MTGO? Meanwhile grinding for the things would take whole human lifetimes...

I ultimately longed for a set of a dozen or so well built decks to pick from, and launch in to multiplayer games where I could be certain of not getting wrecked by someone who has more money than sense. (and yes, I am aware this has been an issue for any CCG, but in the real world and MTGO it is _massively_ mitigated by trading and auctions etc.)

I doubt theyll go back to the old format, I suspect modern duels was probably more profitable despite and because of the above. So Im probably pinning my hopes on them expanding MTGO to serve the same purpose.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how they handle the dichotomy between the expensive buy-in of Magic versus its mostly free-to-play competitors. Obviously Magic cards have a trade value - but for millions of users they just don't care about that. They just want to play a cool card game - and Magic is one of the best/deepest card games out there!

I don't think they can keep having multiple digital platforms, either. Or, well, they certainly can't have two platforms where you have to buy cards that aren't portable between them.

I guess that's what Wizards are trying to work out - how to not haemorrhage users to more generous/free CCGs, while retaining the value of cards.

I feel like the change in release cycle is *another* attempt to get more cash. When I started there were 1 big, 2 small releases a year, plus a core set of all reprints.

Then it was 2 big, 2 small sets a year, all new cards.

Now its 3 big sets a year. Plus a core set that is half new cards, so anyone who wants to be competitive, or who wants to actually collect cards, has to buy in even though they already have half the cards.

The bigger sets are significantly harder to get a set of. I would probably end up spending more on 3 big sets than on 2 big 2 small.

Yes, it let's them do cool stuff with flavour and worlds and what have you, and it let's them reduce the release cadence of the storyline sets to 4 monthly instead of 3 monthly, but its main effect is going to be to increase the pressure to spend more on the game over the same time period.

I'm sure the gameplay will be as fun and engaging as it ever was, but this leaves a bad taste in the mouth

It’s been a rocky ride for fans of the game who want to enjoy the game digitally

Well, that is a huge understatement.

Quote:

Conversely, Magic Online—whilst still proudly displaying the fashion sense of a Win32 app from the 1990s—has slowly improved over the last few years, showing that there is some work by Wizards to appeal to those who prefer online play.

I think you officially hold the highest opinion of Magic Online of anyone in the world that doesn't work directly for Wizards. I guess it would be a shame if you guys reported on the garbage fire that is Magic Online and stopped getting invitations from Wizards to come to events. Cutting edge journalism there.

To be honest I wont miss Magic Duels. While I liked the way theyd update and integrate the latest packs in, I think Ive ultimately had less use out of Duels than almost all the previous iterations except for the awful 2015.

That all largely comes down to the insane cost of the cards. MTGO already exists, obviously as does the real world game, but they are asking for a tonne of cash to buy enough cards to start building decent decks _again_? and without the flexibility or longevity of MTGO? Meanwhile grinding for the things would take whole human lifetimes...

I ultimately longed for a set of a dozen or so well built decks to pick from, and launch in to multiplayer games where I could be certain of not getting wrecked by someone who has more money than sense. (and yes, I am aware this has been an issue for any CCG, but in the real world and MTGO it is _massively_ mitigated by trading and auctions etc.)

I doubt theyll go back to the old format, I suspect modern duels was probably more profitable despite and because of the above. So Im probably pinning my hopes on them expanding MTGO to serve the same purpose.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how they handle the dichotomy between the expensive buy-in of Magic versus its mostly free-to-play competitors. Obviously Magic cards have a trade value - but for millions of users they just don't care about that. They just want to play a cool card game - and Magic is one of the best/deepest card games out there!

I don't think they can keep having multiple digital platforms, either. Or, well, they certainly can't have two platforms where you have to buy cards that aren't portable between them.

I guess that's what Wizards are trying to work out - how to not haemorrhage users to more generous/free CCGs, while retaining the value of cards.

They should allow borrowing / pooling cards. Let people put their cards in a bank, and have other people borrow them from that bank. Charge a fee and pay those that put cards in the pool (with playing points or a different credit). Problem solved. (Use a first in, first out system.)

I feel like the change in release cycle is *another* attempt to get more cash. When I started there were 1 big, 2 small releases a year, plus a core set of all reprints.

Then it was 2 big, 2 small sets a year, all new cards.

Now its 3 big sets a year. Plus a core set that is half new cards, so anyone who wants to be competitive, or who wants to actually collect cards, has to buy in even though they already have half the cards.

The bigger sets are significantly harder to get a set of. I would probably end up spending more on 3 big sets than on 2 big 2 small.

Yes, it let's them do cool stuff with flavour and worlds and what have you, and it let's them reduce the release cadence of the storyline sets to 4 monthly instead of 3 monthly, but its main effect is going to be to increase the pressure to spend more on the game over the same time period.

I'm sure the gameplay will be as fun and engaging as it ever was, but this leaves a bad taste in the mouth

When we played back in the early 90's, it was reasonable to spend a few hundred $$'s for the year. With 3 large sets, and a constantly revising core set, you wont be able to keep up for less than $1000 -- you'll need at least 2 booster boxes of each set and maybe a starter set or two.

They've priced themselves into niche territory. No sane adult with a family is going to bother with MTG any further.

Also the fact that Wizards priced their online version to match the dead-tree version... is just plain galling.

I would add Invocations in the "Ugly" column. I got an invocation of the Scarab God, and it's nigh unreadable.

There are problems with the Limited format (there's almost no common enchantment removal, except for 1 card in the 1 pack of AKH), but they've slowed it a bit by having a ton of creature removal, and reducing the number of 1 & 2 drops.

----

As for collectors, as of this post, you can get 1 of each card of Hour of Devastation (barring invocations) for about $150 (copy-paste the spoiler below into the TCGPlayer Mass Entry Tool - you will need to update the lands and reprints to the correct set)

Thespian's Stage is still better imo to activate that combo. Doesn't cost 3 mana to play, still needs 2 to activate, can tap for a colorless when you're not activating it, and isn't subject to the plethora of artifact removal (pretty much the only land removal I worry about is Wasteland, but someone can Wasteland your Dark Depths anyway while the copy ability is on the stack so it doesn't matter if the copier is a land or not). I don't think I'd be putting any Mirage Mirrors into my lands deck to make the combo more reliable.

I feel like the change in release cycle is *another* attempt to get more cash. When I started there were 1 big, 2 small releases a year, plus a core set of all reprints.

Then it was 2 big, 2 small sets a year, all new cards.

Now its 3 big sets a year. Plus a core set that is half new cards, so anyone who wants to be competitive, or who wants to actually collect cards, has to buy in even though they already have half the cards.

The bigger sets are significantly harder to get a set of. I would probably end up spending more on 3 big sets than on 2 big 2 small.

Yes, it let's them do cool stuff with flavour and worlds and what have you, and it let's them reduce the release cadence of the storyline sets to 4 monthly instead of 3 monthly, but its main effect is going to be to increase the pressure to spend more on the game over the same time period.

I'm sure the gameplay will be as fun and engaging as it ever was, but this leaves a bad taste in the mouth

When we played back in the early 90's, it was reasonable to spend a few hundred $$'s for the year. With 3 large sets, and a constantly revising core set, you wont be able to keep up for less than $1000 -- you'll need at least 2 booster boxes of each set and maybe a starter set or two.

They've priced themselves into niche territory. No sane adult with a family is going to bother with MTG any further.

Also the fact that Wizards priced their online version to match the dead-tree version... is just plain galling.

Out of curiosity what do you consider "keeping up" in Magic? Collecting everything, or just having what's playable from each set?

Thespian's Stage is still better imo to activate that combo. Doesn't cost 3 mana to play, still needs 2 to activate, can tap for a colorless when you're not activating it, and isn't subject to the plethora of artifact removal (pretty much the only land removal I worry about is Wasteland, but someone can Wasteland your Dark Depths anyway while the copy ability is on the stack so it doesn't matter if the copier is a land or not). I don't think I'd be putting any Mirage Mirrors into my lands deck to make the combo more reliable.

but with mirage mirror you can do things like double up on wound reflection, mana reflection, or a lot of other crazy cards. The fact that it can copy dark depths just adds to its crazy synergy.

I feel like the change in release cycle is *another* attempt to get more cash. When I started there were 1 big, 2 small releases a year, plus a core set of all reprints.

Then it was 2 big, 2 small sets a year, all new cards.

Now its 3 big sets a year. Plus a core set that is half new cards, so anyone who wants to be competitive, or who wants to actually collect cards, has to buy in even though they already have half the cards.

The bigger sets are significantly harder to get a set of. I would probably end up spending more on 3 big sets than on 2 big 2 small.

Yes, it let's them do cool stuff with flavour and worlds and what have you, and it let's them reduce the release cadence of the storyline sets to 4 monthly instead of 3 monthly, but its main effect is going to be to increase the pressure to spend more on the game over the same time period.

I'm sure the gameplay will be as fun and engaging as it ever was, but this leaves a bad taste in the mouth

When we played back in the early 90's, it was reasonable to spend a few hundred $$'s for the year. With 3 large sets, and a constantly revising core set, you wont be able to keep up for less than $1000 -- you'll need at least 2 booster boxes of each set and maybe a starter set or two.

They've priced themselves into niche territory. No sane adult with a family is going to bother with MTG any further.

Also the fact that Wizards priced their online version to match the dead-tree version... is just plain galling.

Out of curiosity what do you consider "keeping up" in Magic? Collecting everything, or just having what's playable from each set?

Most of our group quit a few years in, after spending an inordinate amount of money on the "medium" Fallen Empires and Revised, to then have 4th Edition deprecate a slew of our cards. Then one "friend" outspent all of us and Ice Age's Jester soon had none of us getting together to play any longer -- though I still recall some of Homelands and Alliances - it likely took the better part of a year for it to die.

I guess "Keeping Up" is basically remain competitive, without feeling like you are getting ***-raped every game. --You also generally can't make a playable deck without multiples (2-4) of each card, which a 'complete set' doesn't really help with.

I wish Magic Online was not limited to the Microsoft Windows platform. It doesn't work under Wine. Running it in a VM works, but I'm not interested in purchasing a Windows license just to play a game.

As a programmer and Magic player I appreciate how complex coding the software for this game must be. Every time they come up with a new mechanic the devs have a short amount of time to make it happen. I hope it makes sense for them to move the game on to cross platform tools some day soon.

I wish Magic Online was not limited to the Microsoft Windows platform. It doesn't work under Wine. Running it in a VM works, but I'm not interested in purchasing a Windows license just to play a game.

As a programmer and Magic player I appreciate how complex coding the software for this game must be. Every time they come up with a new mechanic the devs have a short amount of time to make it happen. I hope it makes sense for them to move the game on to cross platform tools some day soon.

No it doesn't make sense. "Duels" implemented all the rules, didn't look like 1985, and had slightly more reasonable card prices. MTGo was just another money-grab, that required as much (or more) monetary investment as the actual physical collectible game.

Wizard's digital offerings are going through rough times for sure. (I mean, the 'theoretically' promising Sword Coast Online didn't end up delivering what it promised it would be, the studio behind it also closed doors and stopped updating and fixing it, now Duels is apparently out too...)

I feel like the change in release cycle is *another* attempt to get more cash. When I started there were 1 big, 2 small releases a year, plus a core set of all reprints.

Then it was 2 big, 2 small sets a year, all new cards.

Now its 3 big sets a year. Plus a core set that is half new cards, so anyone who wants to be competitive, or who wants to actually collect cards, has to buy in even though they already have half the cards.

The bigger sets are significantly harder to get a set of. I would probably end up spending more on 3 big sets than on 2 big 2 small.

Yes, it let's them do cool stuff with flavour and worlds and what have you, and it let's them reduce the release cadence of the storyline sets to 4 monthly instead of 3 monthly, but its main effect is going to be to increase the pressure to spend more on the game over the same time period.

I'm sure the gameplay will be as fun and engaging as it ever was, but this leaves a bad taste in the mouth

When we played back in the early 90's, it was reasonable to spend a few hundred $$'s for the year. With 3 large sets, and a constantly revising core set, you wont be able to keep up for less than $1000 -- you'll need at least 2 booster boxes of each set and maybe a starter set or two.

They've priced themselves into niche territory. No sane adult with a family is going to bother with MTG any further.

Also the fact that Wizards priced their online version to match the dead-tree version... is just plain galling.

Out of curiosity what do you consider "keeping up" in Magic? Collecting everything, or just having what's playable from each set?

Most of our group quit a few years in, after spending an inordinate amount of money on the "medium" Fallen Empires and Revised, to then have 4th Edition deprecate a slew of our cards. Then one "friend" outspent all of us and Ice Age's Jester soon had none of us getting together to play any longer -- though I still recall some of Homelands and Alliances - it likely took the better part of a year for it to die.

I guess "Keeping Up" is basically remain competitive, without feeling like you are getting ***-raped every game. --You also generally can't make a playable deck without multiples (2-4) of each card, which a 'complete set' doesn't really help with.

If your concern is to play competitively, don't buy boxes, buy singles. If you just want to get a playset of commons / uncommons for a set look on eBay, they're usually pretty reasonable.

I just hear people talking about buying two+ booster boxes a set and wonder why they're doing it if not to draft.

Full disclosure : I get a box every set, but I get it in trade for sweat equity and only because its the easiest way to get a pile of foreign cards.

Gosh I wish I still had people to play MTG with. I moved out of state and my husband and friends aren't into anything RPG or card-related. I know there are the Friday things at hobby shops but I always feel intimidated. Anyway, I'll inevitably be buying this and continuing to build my decks and collections without anyone to actually play with. :-( Woe!

And here I was thinking, "Oh, new Magic set! Maybe I'll fire up Magic Duels to check it out." So much for that.

I'm a casual Magic player, insofar as that's even possible. Magic Duels was playable enough even free, and yet also successfully tempted me into buying actual physical cards for sets I really liked after playing them in Duels (Kaladesh and Aether Revolt). I'm disappointed they won't be supporting it anymore... that basically means I probably won't be playing Magic anymore, at least for the foreseeable future.

Magic Online doesn't tempt me at all. If I'm gonna be paying for Magic cards, I'd better at least be able to hold them in my hands and admire them in person.

I'm free to play in the digital world. I've been burned by buying cards and then the app going away. (I know that happens eventually anyway, but still.)

I loved the process of unlocking the older Duels decks. I bought access and then would grind my way to them all - a lot more fun than purchasing an immediate unlock.

The last of the Duels forced grinding and reduced the payout. I did a lot of it until the grinding rewards required online play. That just doesn't work for me. I rarely have 20-30 minutes to play online and lose. ;-)

I finally deleted it. The older apps I would still play if they were updated for iOS x64.

I just enjoy the challenge of playing card games against the computer (e.g. Asenscion and Star Realms).

I'm free to play in the digital world. I've been burned by buying cards and then the app going away. (I know that happens eventually anyway, but still.)

I loved the process of unlocking the older Duels decks. I bought access and then would grind my way to them all - a lot more fun than purchasing an immediate unlock.

The last of the Duels forced grinding and reduced the payout. I did a lot of it until the grinding rewards required online play. That just doesn't work for me. I rarely have 20-30 minutes to play online and lose. ;-)

I finally deleted it. The older apps I would still play if they were updated for iOS x64.

I just enjoy the challenge of playing card games against the computer (e.g. Asenscion and Star Realms).

Take a look at Spectromancer (Co-Created by Richard Garfield), they have a Demo that allows you to play online as one of the wizard types: Warrior Priest (Spirit Magic), and IIRC there's even a free flash version whose only limitation is no online play against the handful of people that have stuck around.